Friday, May 29, 2009

There's just one problem, he's getting tough with the wrong country. Israel.

After meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House yesterday, President Obama stressed that Israel's obligations, yes, obligations, toward peace include "stopping settlements" and supporting a Palestinian state. These comments were following very terse comments from Sec. Clinton. The US "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," Mrs. Clinton said, in what is basically the administration's most stark renunciation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's West Bank policies.

So what is Neteanyahu to do? Was he just recently elected to withdraw settlements from the West Bank? Is that what the Israelis want? I DON'T THINK SO!

Has removing settlements from the West Bank made Israel any safer in the past? NO!

Obviously all this is based on the assumption that Obama is going to get tough with Iran if Israel does as it's told. Is that the signal that Obama is sending Israel?? I DON'T THINK SO!

This administration is pouring gasoline on Israel............. while Iran is holding a match.

• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)

• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow.

• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language."

• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation."

• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government.

• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling).

Did anyone in their right mind think he would pick anyone other than a minority woman?

The painful upshot of this is that we will now be subjected to the MSM lauding everything Sotomayor.

1. Her every single 'accomplishment'2. Her heritage.3. Her upbringing.4. Her diabetes. Get ready for a diabetes ribbon.5. Her physique. Get ready for ' Aaaah, she looks like your average American woman'6. Her brilliant education. Princeton...Yale... OH MY!7. How she 'took on' the OLD, WHITE, MALE, BASEBALL OWNERS.8. How her hair-style will influence future Supreme Court decisions.9. How we now we have a strong woman to challenge those eeeevil conservatives on the court.

And of course, the irrelevant Republicans will try to highlight everything she's said or written and try to make something negative of it.Unless there are pictures of her wearing fatigues and a red Chinese army beret while french-kissing Castro... inside the Kremlin............................IT WON'T MATTER. SHE'S IN!

It must have been a real treat to hear CIA Director, Leon Panetta, scold you and the state of Israel, and warn you about the dire consequences of a preemptive strike on Iran.Mr. Prime Minister, the Obama administration has made its peace with Iran and its nuclear aspirations.Mr. Prime Minister, it's a done deal, you and the rest of Israel are on your own.If you want to strike Iran, you sir, are flying solo. This administration will not give you cover or support. Not only will this administration not give you support, they will not be there in the aftermath. Mr. Prime Minister, Obama doesn't 'have your back'

Friday, May 22, 2009

"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe," Obama told 30,000 graduating navy cadets and family members.

"When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."

HUH? How do our values keep us safe from individuals/organizations/countries that want to harm us?

What were our values during the Oklahoma City bombing, on 9-11, during the first World Trade Center bombing, and on Sunday, December 7, 1941? What were the values of the people of Spain when their trains were bombed? Were Japanes values in the toilet when their subways were gassed?

Now we are being lectured, that because 200 terrorists are held at Gitmo, and 3 were water-boarded, our values have been compromised? REALLY MR. PRESIDENT?

Thursday, May 21, 2009

NO! IT'S NOT.READ THIS LETTER FROM THE OWNER OF ONE OF THOSE DEALERSHIPS. THE FOLKS PICTURED ABOVE ARE THE EMPLOYEES OF JUST THIS ONE DEALERSHIP THAT WILL BE 'ON THE STREET'THANKS MR. PRESIDENT!

Letter to the Editor [of American Thinker]

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Monday, May 18, 2009

At the highly publicized Notre Dame speech this weekend, Obama said the following.

"That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions."

HUH? Abortion is heart-wrenching in both moral and spiritual dimensions?

How can that be? Abortions are legal and over a million are performed every year in this country. The left has consistently and fiercely championed the right to abortions as an almost 'natural' event. It's probably more difficult for a woman/girl to buy certain prescription drugs than it is to get an abortion. So how can something legal and 'natural' be a moral and spiritual dilemma?

I'm confused.

Obama also said:

"So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term"

Huh? He wants women to stop doing something that his party clamors for, runs campaigns on, and champions at every turn? Abortions are legal. Why is he advocating the reduction of a legal activity?